Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 April 30

April 30[edit]

File:Logo of Bihar Police (India).svg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Convert to non-free -FASTILY 04:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of Bihar Police (India).svg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use unless age of logo can be established. Salavat (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:BM Cangas.gif[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Convert to non-free -FASTILY 04:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly old image (first version was uploaded in 2006). The old revision says that this was courtesy of Courtesy of www.asobal.es, but (even if valid), I can't find such support for the newer version of the file. Unsure how to proceed, so I'm bringing this up for discussion here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Southern border of Bhutan1985.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a map of an international border as it was prior to 1865. I'm unsure if this sort of map is creative enough to have copyright arise in it (I suspect not, but want to bring it here in case), but if not then this would easily be replaceable fair use. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to PD - a map needs to have some creative aspect to it in order to be copyrighted. The boundaries, and placements of the markers are expressions of fact and really show no level of creativity that would give rise to copyright. The compass rose looks like many others I've seen so I do not think that is a creative element that would be sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Haider Main Battle Tank side view.jpeg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate source of the image does not provide an author, but the uploader claims that the file is public domain because it was Posted By the Military Itself to show strength. The uploader also identifies this as a Pakistani tank. However, Pakistan's government holds copyrights on its original works for 50 years after publication. As the photo is marked as being from 2022, this would be copyrighted even if Pakistan's government were the first copyright holder. And, if the first copyright holder were to be a private citizen, then this would also be copyrighted as the original work of a private citizen. As such, this should be deleted as being copyrighted while lacking evidence of a valid free license from the copyright holder. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Nu hiu faimos ama hiu Armân.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum, see below -FASTILY 04:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how can I request the renaming of a file. But I propose a change to File:Nu hiu faimos ama hiu armãn.jpg. Aromanian is not written with "â" but with "ã", "â" is a Romanian letter. There's also no reason to capitalize armãn here, from what I've seen books and articles mentioning this film don't do so. See also I'm Not Famous but I'm Aromanian. Super Ψ Dro 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: {{Rename media}} is the template you're probably after in this case. Though maybe the file might be better off being renamed as "I'm Not Famous but I'm Aromanian poster" given this is the English Wikipedia (just a thought). Salavat (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will propose it. This discussion can be closed. Super Ψ Dro 17:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Vanoss Gaming logos[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete File:VanossGamingExtra Logo.svg, convert File:VanossGaming Logo 2015.svg to non-free -FASTILY 04:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logos for VanossGaming which seems to be too complex to be {{PD-logo}}, even per c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO Canada. Most likely the licensing on these files could be converted to {{Non-free logo}}, but both files wouldn't be needed in that case per WP:NFCC#3a since there essentially identical. In addition, the way the files are currently used in VanossGaming#Logos would fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG if converted to non-free. Suggest converting "File:VanossGamingExtra Logo.svg" to a non-free license and adding the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale logo}} for use in the main infobox. File:Evan Fong 2019.png currently being used in the main infobox fails WP:FREER and will almost certainly be deleted per WP:F7 in a few days. The other logo file "File:VanossGaming Logo 2015.svg" should be deleted per WP:F9 since there's no way to keep it as non-free and the YouTube source doesn't release the file under a free license acceptatble for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marchjuly, I've just completely misunderstood the geometric shapes suggestion for PD-logo and clearly got the File:Evan Fong 2019.png rationale idea wrong as well. Might I request that "File:VanossGaming Logo 2015.svg" be converted to non-free logo and moved to the infobox, whereas the "File:VanossGamingExtra Logo.svg" be deleted entirely. Just the opposite to what you suggested. Kind Regards, Idiosincrático (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Either of the two logos is OK as non-free, but it seems preferable to keep the most recent one, doesn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "File:VanossGamingExtra Logo.svg" (red logo) is the logo of a sub-channel with additional/extra content, different from his primary channel logo ("File:VanossGaming Logo 2015.svg") with 25+ mil subscribers. Is it okay for me to fix the articles/rationales/licenses as per your suggestions? Also, I have the ambition to make the article GA status and, whilst I know the article still needs loads of work, I think I have enough sources to reach the status (many not yet included), would really appreciate any additional advice on the article. Cheers. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the 2015 logo is still the main logo used by Vanoss, then that's the one that should be kept and converted to non-free. Perhaps, it's best to wait until this discussion has been closed before doing that just in case someone else feels differently. As for bringing the article up to GA status, you can trying asking about that at one of the WikiProjects whose scope the article falls under or at WT:GAN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.